Comments on: Swedish Tanks – Part XVII: Strv 103

By: Ew

Ew — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 08:19:00 +0000

One word, overmatch, every single 120mm gun will auto penetrate the front nomatter what angle its at.

By: CaMaRo

CaMaRo — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 06:00:47 +0000

Hadn`t you bounced of from 13-90 with Jagdpanzer 100 ever?

By: Leedar

Leedar — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 05:43:52 +0000

Much like the Object 416 (stealthy, high power gun, mediocre armour, low health), except the the 416 gets a semi-turret instead of good depression.

By: Leedar

Leedar — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 05:31:50 +0000

The problem with WoT implementation as it is now (excluding the suspension and horizontal aiming) is that only small capacity cassette autoloaders are represented. While a lot of gun stats are not historical for balance, it would be particularly unhistorical to use either of the current loading mechanisms. I would suggest a new mechanism which is identical to manual loading but cannot equip a rammer and is not influenced by loader skill; in exchange RoF is exceptional by default, e.g. 50% of historical (10 RPM), which would make gun performance roughly the same as a fully equipped Tortoise. I imagine the lack of turret and unreliable armour (and perhaps low health) would balance the gun.

By: PinkyDK

PinkyDK — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 02:51:02 +0000

Take an o-serie production with 50mm front and you need 15cm gun like E100 or bigger to auto-penetrate

By: PinkyDK

PinkyDK — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 02:43:56 +0000

Only 20 shots pr minute? WT E100 Could do 30 if the clip was big enough… Fuck you WT E100

By: karl0ssus1

karl0ssus1 — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 01:55:36 +0000

Thats X2 overmatch, which comes with increased normalisation. X3 overmatch guarantees a pen, and does not care for angle. Seeing as there are a large number of 120+mm guns all over the place in WoT, the ribbed armor would like have to be considered.

By: stalin_manofsteel

stalin_manofsteel — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 01:21:17 +0000

I love how the Americans always want to belittle Europeans by labeling the S-tank as a tank destroyer

“The interest went as far as the US president John F. Kennedy asking about it and receiving a report on the US Army’s thoughts on the vehicle. The US report on the S-tank was for the most part accurate, the tank had been designed from the ground up for a type of defensive ambush warfare, that was more typical for tank destroyers and therefore it was considered as a tank destroyer in the USA.”

By: Guardian54

Guardian54 — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:10:27 +0000

E-25: Speed, ROF(L), low alpha, CAMO
Strv 103: Speed (Oh really?), low alpha, CAMO, so it also needs ROF(L).

That’s why I was saying unless the ROF is obscene it’s screwed.

By: sp15

sp15 — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:18:14 +0000

no its not accurate when compared with swedish documents